Is Chelsea still considered a sugar daddy club?

[Dancfc]

You're still living off the elevation given to you by that huge initial investment though. It's like the son of a billionaire saying he made it on his own because he no longer needs to live on handouts (after having his entire business built up by the money of others).

You don't act like a sugarbaby club anymore, but the reason why you are where you are is entirely down to being exactly that at one point.

By that principle you can say the same with a lot of clubs.

Arsenal's initial elevation to where they are today started with Henry Norris allegedly buying (literally) a promotion (they have regained their top flight status ever since). United you only need to go slightly into their wiki page to see they were saved from liquidation as Newton Heath thanks to four wealthy businessmen. I'm sure if I dug hard enough I could find situations where Liverpool and Spurs got themselves a bit of a leg up aswell.

 

[Tommy]

By that principle you can say the same with a lot of clubs.

Arsenal's initial elevation to where they are today started with Henry Norris allegedly buying (literally) a promotion (they have regained their top flight status ever since). United you only need to go slightly into their wiki page to see they were saved from liquidation as Newton Heath thanks to four wealthy businessmen. I'm sure if I dug hard enough I could find situations where Liverpool and Spurs got themselves a bit of a leg up aswell.

No doubt, & like I said earlier in the thread & in the Man City thread previously, the passage of time & continued success makes all that stuff fade away after a while. It's definitely not as in-your-face with Chelsea as it was back when RA first took over.

 

[Marcelinho87]

Yes because without the initial splurge they wouldn't be the club they are, regardless of his input now.

 

[duffer]

Having a sugar daddy is far better that having a deadbeat dad who takes money out of their kids pockets.

 

[Tom Cato]

Nothing innocent in my sentence. what I meant was that Abramovich was afraid of whoever were to become a new Tzar. It’s normal life in Russia.

if you believe that Russian Tzar has friends who can feel safe in Russia, that’s the innocence. Abramovich is too smart and knows Better who is Mr. Putin.

Abramovich bought the club in July 2003, Khodorkovsky was jailed in October 2003.

I guess, you don’t give a shit though...just trying to be smart at someone’s expense.

What I was getting at is that you reasoned your argument with Abramovich being afraid that the Russian authorities would find some skeletons in his closet. I'm sure you realize that Putin is still in power because he's about as poltically corrupt as they come. How Abramovich. The authorities in Russia could care less how an Oligarch came into his wealth, what they care about is how close they are with the Kremlin.

 

[GifLord]

Didn't Silvio do something similar with Milan but 15 years earlier?

 

[Offside]

Chelsea have won the league what twice in 9 years? 3 times in 13 years? Far from the dominance they threatened at the start when it was 2 in 3 years. That's because the money has stopped. The money is the only reason they are relevant in the first place.

Definition of a sugar daddy club.

 

[Dancfc]

Chelsea have won the league what twice in 9 years? 3 times in 13 years? .

Three,which is more than any club in Europes big leagues in the same period bar the one team league teams, Barca and City!

 

[Pow]

Three,which is more than any club in Europes big leagues in the same period bar the one team league teams, Barca and City!

Eh we won it in 2010. 2015. 2017 thats 3 in the last decade. Good times.

 

[Dancfc]

Eh we won it in 2010. 2015. 2017 thats 3 in the last decade. Good times.

I meant 3 Inthe last 9 years replying to his "point".

 

[Aidan Azar]

Chelsea have won the league what twice in 9 years? 3 times in 13 years? Far from the dominance they threatened at the start when it was 2 in 3 years. That's because the money has stopped. The money is the only reason they are relevant in the first place.

Definition of a sugar daddy club.

3 major European trophies in the last 8 years aint too bad though is it?

 

[11101]

Of course they are. They were a reasonable mid sized mid table club until Abramovich happened, along the lines of Everton today. It's been a little forgotten over time and because City and PSG came along and blew the sugar daddy thing out of the water, but that's where it all started for them.

 

[blue blue]

Chelsea have won the league what twice in 9 years? 3 times in 13 years? Far from the dominance they threatened at the start when it was 2 in 3 years. That's because the money has stopped. The money is the only reason they are relevant in the first place.

Definition of a sugar daddy club.

5 Premier League Titles, 5 FA Cups, 3 League Cups, 2 EL Cups and 1 CL title since Abramovich took over. I'm not sure any other club has won more in that period but for sure they aren't the only club to have had a significant investment and I would suggest that is why they haven't dominated as much as first thought. Still they have done extremely well.
It's nonsense to say the trophies have dried up since the money stopped because they have been complying with FFP rules and still won a number of PL titles.
It's good you recognise they are relevant but lets face it they were a club before Abramovich and they currently are 4th in the league without signing anybody in the last transfer window. They have a whole bunch of young players from the academy that every other PL club would kill for and they have a young English manager who is trying to play them. This is how a football club should be run.
They are far from being a so called sugar daddy club.

 

[Dancfc]

Of course they are. They were a reasonable mid sized mid table club until Abramovich happened, along the lines of Everton today. It's been a little forgotten over time and because City and PSG came along and blew the sugar daddy thing out of the water, but that's where it all started for them.

If we play that game United only exist today because four business men saved them from liquidation.

 

[blue blue]

Of course they are. They were a reasonable mid sized mid table club until Abramovich happened, along the lines of Everton today. It's been a little forgotten over time and because City and PSG came along and blew the sugar daddy thing out of the water, but that's where it all started for them.

They were not a mid table club when Abramovic happened. They were in the Champions League and had been in it few years before. They had also recently won the Cup winners and FA Cups so to compare them with Everton is clearly wrong. It appears you have forgotten what actually happened.

If you're going to knock a club you ought to check your facts first.

 

[DoomSlayer]

It annoys the feck out of me when people write "chelsea", "pool", "manutd", as if it's so smart to slyly disrespect a club like that.

I personally don't consider them like that anymore, they grew along with their success on the pitch and they did have fans all over the world even before Abramovich bought them, so I have some sort of respect towards them, unlike other teams.

 

[Tommy]

It annoys the feck out of me when people write "chelsea", "pool", "manutd", as if it's so smart to slyly disrespect a club like that.

I personally don't consider them like that anymore, they grew along with their success on the pitch and they did have fans all over the world even before Abramovich bought them, so I have some sort of respect towards them, unlike other teams.

I don't think people are trying to be disrespectful there - Just a tad lazy/efficient. No chance I'm saying Manchester United Football Club every time.

 

[mu4c_20le]

I don't think people are trying to be disrespectful there - Just a tad lazy/efficient. No chance I'm saying Manchester United Football Club every time.

It should be a rule. Time for some standards around here.

 

[blue blue]

It should be a rule. Time for some standards around here.

WTF

 

[blue blue]

https://www.chelseafc.com/en/news/2018/7/1/celebrating-15-success-filled-years-

 

[Rooney in Paris]

5 Premier League Titles, 5 FA Cups, 3 League Cups, 2 EL Cups and 1 CL title since Abramovich took over. I'm not sure any other club has won more in that period but for sure they aren't the only club to have had a significant investment and I would suggest that is why they haven't dominated as much as first thought. Still they have done extremely well.
It's nonsense to say the trophies have dried up since the money stopped because they have been complying with FFP rules and still won a number of PL titles.
It's good you recognise they are relevant but lets face it they were a club before Abramovich and they currently are 4th in the league without signing anybody in the last transfer window. They have a whole bunch of young players from the academy that every other PL club would kill for and they have a young English manager who is trying to play them. This is how a football club should be run.
They are far from being a so called sugar daddy club.

Why do you say "they" when you're a CFC fan?

 

[ZolaWasMagic]

Between 95 or 96 and abramovich buying us, we hadnt finished lower than 6th if my memory serves. So to say we were a mid table club before Roman is slightly pushing it. Yes there were times we finished 11th and 14th.. but thats a good 7 yrs of constant top 6 finishes prior to Roman, and CL football along with cup wins.

This sugar daddy stuff and what have you is a nonsense. We are owned by a very wealthy man, still worth around 10-12billion as of this moment; but he doesn't plough in much at all now when it comes to transfers etc unless we need it, as we spend what we earn really

Blackburn won the league due to heavy backing, City too, Chelsea, Liverpool in the 70s would have been far less successful without the Moores family backing. You win nothing without money, Most owners are sugar daddies to an extent, just some more in your face than others.

 

[GifLord]

Between 95 or 96 and abramovich buying us, we hadnt finished lower than 6th if my memory serves. So to say we were a mid table club before Roman is slightly pushing it. Yes there were times we finished 11th and 14th.. but thats a good 7 yrs of constant top 6 finishes prior to Roman, and CL football along with cup wins.

This sugar daddy stuff and what have you is a nonsense. We are owned by a very wealthy man, still worth around 10-12billion as of this moment; but he doesn't plough in much at all now when it comes to transfers etc unless we need it, as we spend what we earn really

Blackburn won the league due to heavy backing, City too, Chelsea, Liverpool in the 70s would have been far less successful without the Moores family backing. You win nothing without money, Most owners are sugar daddies to an extent, just some more in your face than others.

That's cause you were spending money even before Roman took over.
https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/fc-chelsea/alletransfers/verein/631

 

[Handré1990]

This is a fantastic sentence. Bless your innocent heart.

Lovely

 

[11101]

They were not a mid table club when Abramovic happened. They were in the Champions League and had been in it few years before. They had also recently won the Cup winners and FA Cups so to compare them with Everton is clearly wrong. It appears you have forgotten what actually happened.

If you're going to knock a club you ought to check your facts first.

Chelsea's league position for the 10 years preceding Abramovich:
14, 11, 11, 6, 4, 3, 5, 6, 6, 4.

Everton's last 10 seasons:
8, 7, 7, 6, 5, 11, 11, 7, 8, 8.

Hardly night and day, is it?

 

[redman5]

I fit into that "old timers" bracket you speak of and to be honest it was always my impression that Liverpool were a well run club and could afford the better players because they had a huge fanbase. Actually I think they also had a very good scouting and training policy. Back in the day it was never a topic of discussion that Liverpool were a sugar daddy club. Teams didn't buy big on the continent in those days anyway. Forrest paid £1m for Trevor Francis and everybody asked where would it all end. Utd were rubbish in those days but still had a huge fanbase and it took them decades to fully recover. They had the money but couldn't buy a real top team. (Sounds a bit familiar actually)

Chelsea were fortunate to get the investment from Abramovich but I would argue they made their own luck. They achieved Champions League football just before he chose them over Spurs and they did that on their own although it could be argued that Matthew Harding contributed. They have made the most of that investment to be where they are now and have moved out of the Sugar Daddy bracket by good management.

Even though the trophy cabinet hasn't exactly been bulging over the past few years, Liverpool has been been a well run club for as long as I can remember (back to the mid 60's). Assuming we're not going to collapse this season, then it'll be our 58th consecutive season whereby we've finished in the top 8. That's pretty remarkable when you consider how many players, managers, & other key personnel, have come & gone during that time. You're absolutely right about the foundations for our near 2 decades of dominance. Money was important of course, but having a certain style of play, & an identity, plus the knack of signing the 'right' players & not just the best ones, was just as important. 'The Liverpool way' was that identity & it served 4 consecutive managers well - Shankly, Paisley, Fagan, & Dalgish - all of whom won at least one league title during their time in charge at Anfield. The problem with having a successful formula is that it becomes very difficult to change & move with the times. That's when The Liverpool way became old-hat & ineffective. Hungrier, more advanced clubs like United came on to scene & left us behind. But they too have become victims of their own success by relying on 'The Ferguson way' for all their achievements over 20 years. As for Chelsea, the way I see it they were a pretty good side even before Abramovich took over. I seriously doubt however they'd have ever been in a position to challenge Ferguson's United or Wenger's Arsenal without that massive cash injection. Without their owner continuing to splash big money every season I'd say they've regressed to the point of just being a very good side again. So unless, or until, Roman goes back to his old ways of throwing money at Chelsea's shortcomings, then I don't consider them a sugar-daddy club anymore.

 

[Sparky_Hughes]

Having a sugar daddy is far better that having a deadbeat dad who takes money out of their kids pockets.

 

[OverratedOpinion]

Meh, Chelsea are just boring. Whether they win or lose, play great football or go ultra defensive I always get a distinctive feeling of "who gives a feck?"

Probably not a sugar daddy club because Abramovich is bored of them too.

 

[giorno]

Is Abramovich still pumping his own money into the club? Yes-Yes/No-No

Pick

 

[el3mel]

It annoys the feck out of me when people write "chelsea", "pool", "manutd", as if it's so smart to slyly disrespect a club like that.

I personally don't consider them like that anymore, they grew along with their success on the pitch and they did have fans all over the world even before Abramovich bought them, so I have some sort of respect towards them, unlike other teams.

Writing Pool is easier than Liverpool though.

As for Chelsea and United, thank feck for the autocorrection on mobile for making the first letter capital without breaking a sweat, otherwise it would have been easier to write them like that as well.

 

[DoomSlayer]

Writing Pool is easier than Liverpool though.

As for Chelsea and United, thank feck for the autocorrection on mobile for making the first letter capital without breaking a sweat, otherwise it would have been easier to write them like that as well.

I guess it's a personal issue of mine, although the forum rules and mods do say this when it comes to posting:

• Don't use text speak on the site, it's not only unpopular, it's against the rules.

 

[Sandikan]

What is always fun, is when Chelsea fans moan about City and their spending.
Even though at their time Chelsea arguably were more of a money team, relative to fees at the time versus everyone

 

[Gjx]

I guess it's a personal issue of mine, although the forum rules and mods do say this when it comes to posting:

There were abbreviations long before mobile phones. Get a grip dude.

 

[UnrelatedPsuedo]

Anyone that gets weird about financial injections is a little off.

United were exceptionally lucky to win the inaugural PL at a point that they had one of the best managers of all time. Masses of hard work and good decisions beyond that. But luck and circumstance played a part and it’s unfair to ignore that.

Funding sources is a valid point. I couldn’t follow United if Saudi Arabia bought them, and then the best 11 in world football. I’d watch them. But I would be removed from their inevitable success.

City are slightly more defendable than a Saudi takeover. Chelsea are slightly more defendable than an Abu Dhabi one.

The fact remains that cash injections are good for the PL. I don’t believe that the ends always justify the means. Chelsea are the most successful English side since Abramovich opened his wallet. But future success is certainly less tainted if they receive less financial doping in the next 20 years and thrive.

Its tough. It’s not binary. Their past success was a wee bit tainted. But future success doesn’t get a huge asterix put next to it. For me at least.

 

[DoomSlayer]

There were abbreviations long before mobile phones. Get a grip dude.

Why should I get a grip when it says it's against the rules?

 

[GifLord]

Anyone that gets weird about financial injections is a little off.

United were exceptionally lucky to win the inaugural PL at a point that they had one of the best managers of all time. Masses of hard work and good decisions beyond that. But luck and circumstance played a part and it’s unfair to ignore that.

Funding sources is a valid point. I couldn’t follow United if Saudi Arabia bought them, and then the best 11 in world football. I’d watch them. But I would be removed from their inevitable success.

City are slightly more defendable than a Saudi takeover. Chelsea are slightly more defendable than an Abu Dhabi one.

The fact remains that cash injections are good for the PL. I don’t believe that the ends always justify the means. Chelsea are the most successful English side since Abramovich opened his wallet. But future success is certainly less tainted if they receive less financial doping in the next 20 years and thrive.

Its tough. It’s not binary. Their past success was a wee bit tainted. But future success doesn’t get a huge asterix put next to it. For me at least.

Chelsea were close to bankruptcy before Roman took over and gave them a massive cash injection. If it wasn't for him we might have seen another Leeds Utd scenario.

Roman Abramovich's buyout of Chelsea almost certainly rescued the club from having to default on a £75m loan that would have plunged it into financial crisis. In the latest extract of the Chelsea FC: The Official Biography, serialised in the Guardian today, the club's chairman Bruce Buck has detailed the extent of Chelsea's financial position before the £140m takeover in the summer of 2003.

Buck reveals the club was sinking in a quagmire of debt. "I personally was surprised," said Buck. "They had a £75m Eurobond outstanding and it was perfectly clear to the markets that they might have trouble making the July payment. [The then chief executive] Trevor Birch had been in discussions for some time about restructuring that bond. The financial community as opposed to the football community knew there were some real issues."

Chelsea had borrowed heavily from financial institutions, principally to fund stadium development. Ruth Giste, the widow of the late club director Matthew Harding, had also demanded repayment of a significant sum loaned to the club. "Fans did not know that in January the club had mortgaged, if you will, the TV revenues," added Buck. "It borrowed against the TV revenues that were to be handed out in August. I didn't know as a fan the club owed money to the Harding family and they wanted it back. As a fan I was naive. I knew the club had financial problems, but didn't know the specifics."

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2005/oct/17/newsstory.sport9

 

[duffer]

Chelsea were close to bankruptcy before Roman took over and gave them a massive cash injection. If it wasn't for him we might have seen another Leeds Utd scenario.

Well thank god for him then!

 

[UnrelatedPsuedo]

Chelsea were close to bankruptcy before Roman took over and gave them a massive cash injection. If it wasn't for him we might have seen another Leeds Utd scenario.



https://www.theguardian.com/football/2005/oct/17/newsstory.sport9

My point didn’t ignore any of that. I understand and accept that. I’m 38. I get it.

But if all teams had equal money in England, that would be awesome.

Im not going to judge Chelsea negatively if they become a well run club in the years to come and win things while spending at league-normal levels.

 

[Vitali]

Why should I get a grip when it says it's against the rules?

I would have thought that in this age of information, one would know the difference between nicknames, abbreviations and textspeak.

The segment excerpted in your post only covered textspeak (also known as SMS language), without referencing the former.

 

[11101]

Anyone that gets weird about financial injections is a little off.

United were exceptionally lucky to win the inaugural PL at a point that they had one of the best managers of all time. Masses of hard work and good decisions beyond that. But luck and circumstance played a part and it’s unfair to ignore that.

Funding sources is a valid point. I couldn’t follow United if Saudi Arabia bought them, and then the best 11 in world football. I’d watch them. But I would be removed from their inevitable success.

City are slightly more defendable than a Saudi takeover. Chelsea are slightly more defendable than an Abu Dhabi one.

The fact remains that cash injections are good for the PL. I don’t believe that the ends always justify the means. Chelsea are the most successful English side since Abramovich opened his wallet. But future success is certainly less tainted if they receive less financial doping in the next 20 years and thrive.

Its tough. It’s not binary. Their past success was a wee bit tainted. But future success doesn’t get a huge asterix put next to it. For me at least.

Good for the club that gets taken over. Bad for everyone else, and I don't mean in a competition way. The money doesn't filter down to lower leagues or the fans, it makes it more expensive for everybody involved.